Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36936202›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023

The comparison of gasless and traditional robot-assisted transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery in hysterectomy.

Youwen Mei, Li He, Qiang Zhang, Ying Chen, Jiafeng Zheng, Xinyu Xiao, Yonghong Lin

Full text read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Early experience with the gasless vNOTES technique for adnexal surgery.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Youwen MeiChengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Li HeChengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Qiang ZhangChengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Ying ChenChengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Jiafeng ZhengChengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Xinyu XiaoChengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Yonghong LinChengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Study objective: To describe the surgical technique and compare the operative outcomes of gasless and traditional robot-assisted transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (GR-vNOTES vs. TR-vNOTES) in hysterectomy. Methods: The patients undergoing hysterectomy Results: Five cases underwent hysterectomy Conclusion: Both GR-vNOTES and TR-vNOTES were feasible and safe for hysterectomy. GR-vNOTES was a promising alternative to TR-vNOTES in hysterectomy.

Indexed as

gasless techniquehysterectomyoperative outcomerobot-assisted surgerytransvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery

Identifiers

PMID36936202
PMCPMC10019594

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read5
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.